Todd Miller <todd33 at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>AIDS Treatment News / Immunet wrote:
>> Long-term survivors have usually tried many different treatments,
>> and found combinations which work for them.
>Does anyone know of a reference that supports this statement?
>Is this statement true because by definition, a "long-term
>survivor" is a person who HAS taken the establishment's therapy,
>while a "long-term non-progressor" is a person who has avoided
>this therapy?
There is evidence that people with AIDS (who have progressed whether
they took drugs or not) have better clinical condition and survival
when they take drugs in combination than those who do not use drugs
who have progressed to AIDS.
This is a separate question of whether there is a value in using the
drugs for people with HIV who are progressing at fairly slow rates
toward AIDS. It is probably best to wait for some period, but not
until T cells drop much below 100. Indeed, some people can be HIV+
for 10 years without developing AIDS--but may still be progressing in
terms of continually but relatievly slowly declining CD4 counts. As
time passes, the risk for opportunistic infections occurring rises.
By contrast, there is a group of about 10-12% of people with HIV who
are either extremely slow or non-progressors (for all intents and
purposes). Their CD4 count does not diminish. There is no rationale
for treating these people.
So your question needs to be clarified. The reality is, most infected
people WILL progress to AIDS. Not treating at a certain point in the
progression is a fatally stupid mistake.
George M. Carter